| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:34 - Sep 18 with 1396 views | Churchman |
Too close, GS. But I get the impression the government are so consumed with themselves and ‘the Party’ they are completely blind or in complete denial.
Just look at our hypocritical liar of a Chancellor. Resigned in high dudgeon as defence minister because Starmer and the Treasury wouldn't even back even the most inadequate of plans, when the real reason he resigned was because he wanted away from Starmer and the ‘big job’
He gets the big job and chucks in the bin the very reason why he resigned as defence minister. He is not interested and neither is the government. Maybe their ‘give peace a chance’ peacenik approach is the right one and it’s correct to put everything else before defence of the country. Let’s face it, they share the current disarmament policy with their predecessors.
But I think they are wrong. It is just about the most dangerous period of my lifetime and one I never thought I’d live to see. |  | |  |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:44 - Sep 18 with 1368 views | Guthrum |
I disagree with two key parts of his original premise.
Firstly, that the Russians were aiming to kill any of the foreign dignitaries. The drone hit the engine of the train, not any of the carriages or the station. That is not pure chance, these things are guided. It was a warning message, not an attempted assassination.
Secondly, that we would have had 'no choice but to retaliate with a punitive military strike on a Russian target'. That is not the case at all. This was no official delegation (NATO or otherwise), but a collection of observers and lobbyists with no diplomatic standing. Prominent individuals, but travelling in a private capacity. They voluntarily entered a war zone.
Yes, it would have been of considerable significance and provoked a reaction. But Western governments are not looking for any excuse to start an open war with Russia. Otherwise it would already have happened.
Overall, this article is nothing more than a plea for increased defence spending. Which, in the real world, has to be taken from other budgets (already cut to the bone) or through increased taxation (deeply unpopular). |  |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:52 - Sep 18 with 1306 views | giant_stow |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:44 - Sep 18 by Guthrum |
I disagree with two key parts of his original premise.
Firstly, that the Russians were aiming to kill any of the foreign dignitaries. The drone hit the engine of the train, not any of the carriages or the station. That is not pure chance, these things are guided. It was a warning message, not an attempted assassination.
Secondly, that we would have had 'no choice but to retaliate with a punitive military strike on a Russian target'. That is not the case at all. This was no official delegation (NATO or otherwise), but a collection of observers and lobbyists with no diplomatic standing. Prominent individuals, but travelling in a private capacity. They voluntarily entered a war zone.
Yes, it would have been of considerable significance and provoked a reaction. But Western governments are not looking for any excuse to start an open war with Russia. Otherwise it would already have happened.
Overall, this article is nothing more than a plea for increased defence spending. Which, in the real world, has to be taken from other budgets (already cut to the bone) or through increased taxation (deeply unpopular). |
Interesting thoughts you two - thanks - we have both sides laid out clearly with them!
I guess I come down on taking the threat seriously and while you Guthrum make a good point on the nature of the attack on the train, that attack isn't the only thing that's happened recently, as listed by Kropotkin123 here: How to Respond to Putin's Escalation? by Kropotkin123 15 Sep 1:31Recent Escalations
• A train that was carrying diplomats was targeted on the Polish border.
• This month, Russian drones entered Moldova
• This month, Russia sent a Shahed drone 50km into Romanian airspace.
• In August, Drones with explosives were found in Leipzig, which Germany attributed to Russia.
• In August, Romania had to scramble military jets to destroy a Russian naval drone.
• In May, a drone hit a Romanian apartment.
This is all after intelligence said Russia were planning escalations against NATO.
Reactions
• Trump doesn't want Zelensky hitting diesel targets (the reason for the increase in prices, nothing to do with his war on Iran)
• Trump's diplomats want Ukraine to give up the Donbas, so Russia can end the war.
• Some think the train attack was a deliberate attempt to kill diplomats
• Some think it is to intimidate people from visiting and supporting
Options on how to Respond
• Same old, same old. Promise more sanctions, promise more money, close more cultural centres.
• Commit European aircrafts to defending Ukrainian airspace. Russia wants to mobilize 500,000-600,000 more solders through forced conscription. This would give them an easy excuse to do that with more unity from their population.
• Move European defences closer to the borders to protect against incursions, overlapping into Ukraine to give them more defensive capabilities. I agree with this suggestion.
What do you think?
I'm by nature a panic merchant, but I feel things are very close to kicking off. |  |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 10:07 - Sep 18 with 1243 views | BABLUE |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:34 - Sep 18 by Churchman |
Too close, GS. But I get the impression the government are so consumed with themselves and ‘the Party’ they are completely blind or in complete denial.
Just look at our hypocritical liar of a Chancellor. Resigned in high dudgeon as defence minister because Starmer and the Treasury wouldn't even back even the most inadequate of plans, when the real reason he resigned was because he wanted away from Starmer and the ‘big job’
He gets the big job and chucks in the bin the very reason why he resigned as defence minister. He is not interested and neither is the government. Maybe their ‘give peace a chance’ peacenik approach is the right one and it’s correct to put everything else before defence of the country. Let’s face it, they share the current disarmament policy with their predecessors.
But I think they are wrong. It is just about the most dangerous period of my lifetime and one I never thought I’d live to see. |
Some facts and figures
https://www.statista.com/stati |  | | |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 10:08 - Sep 18 with 1239 views | Guthrum |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:52 - Sep 18 by giant_stow |
Interesting thoughts you two - thanks - we have both sides laid out clearly with them!
I guess I come down on taking the threat seriously and while you Guthrum make a good point on the nature of the attack on the train, that attack isn't the only thing that's happened recently, as listed by Kropotkin123 here: How to Respond to Putin's Escalation? by Kropotkin123 15 Sep 1:31Recent Escalations
• A train that was carrying diplomats was targeted on the Polish border.
• This month, Russian drones entered Moldova
• This month, Russia sent a Shahed drone 50km into Romanian airspace.
• In August, Drones with explosives were found in Leipzig, which Germany attributed to Russia.
• In August, Romania had to scramble military jets to destroy a Russian naval drone.
• In May, a drone hit a Romanian apartment.
This is all after intelligence said Russia were planning escalations against NATO.
Reactions
• Trump doesn't want Zelensky hitting diesel targets (the reason for the increase in prices, nothing to do with his war on Iran)
• Trump's diplomats want Ukraine to give up the Donbas, so Russia can end the war.
• Some think the train attack was a deliberate attempt to kill diplomats
• Some think it is to intimidate people from visiting and supporting
Options on how to Respond
• Same old, same old. Promise more sanctions, promise more money, close more cultural centres.
• Commit European aircrafts to defending Ukrainian airspace. Russia wants to mobilize 500,000-600,000 more solders through forced conscription. This would give them an easy excuse to do that with more unity from their population.
• Move European defences closer to the borders to protect against incursions, overlapping into Ukraine to give them more defensive capabilities. I agree with this suggestion.
What do you think?
I'm by nature a panic merchant, but I feel things are very close to kicking off. |
That's what I meant by 'Otherwise it would already have happened'. There have already been quite a number of provocations entirely sufficient for a causus belli if we were really looking for one.
However, Putin is trying to prod and probe Europe/NATO, in the hope that it would fall apart under the strain (some members in favour of action, others against, when there has been not enough to invoke Article 5). Direct involvement would justify all his propaganda, distract from our support for Ukraine and maybe lead to more damaging attacks (e.g. upon infrastructure).
An open war would be a disaster for Russia, they are already deeply mired in Ukraine. Putin knows that and is very careful not to push things too far. | |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 10:10 - Sep 18 with 1227 views | Churchman |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:52 - Sep 18 by giant_stow |
Interesting thoughts you two - thanks - we have both sides laid out clearly with them!
I guess I come down on taking the threat seriously and while you Guthrum make a good point on the nature of the attack on the train, that attack isn't the only thing that's happened recently, as listed by Kropotkin123 here: How to Respond to Putin's Escalation? by Kropotkin123 15 Sep 1:31Recent Escalations
• A train that was carrying diplomats was targeted on the Polish border.
• This month, Russian drones entered Moldova
• This month, Russia sent a Shahed drone 50km into Romanian airspace.
• In August, Drones with explosives were found in Leipzig, which Germany attributed to Russia.
• In August, Romania had to scramble military jets to destroy a Russian naval drone.
• In May, a drone hit a Romanian apartment.
This is all after intelligence said Russia were planning escalations against NATO.
Reactions
• Trump doesn't want Zelensky hitting diesel targets (the reason for the increase in prices, nothing to do with his war on Iran)
• Trump's diplomats want Ukraine to give up the Donbas, so Russia can end the war.
• Some think the train attack was a deliberate attempt to kill diplomats
• Some think it is to intimidate people from visiting and supporting
Options on how to Respond
• Same old, same old. Promise more sanctions, promise more money, close more cultural centres.
• Commit European aircrafts to defending Ukrainian airspace. Russia wants to mobilize 500,000-600,000 more solders through forced conscription. This would give them an easy excuse to do that with more unity from their population.
• Move European defences closer to the borders to protect against incursions, overlapping into Ukraine to give them more defensive capabilities. I agree with this suggestion.
What do you think?
I'm by nature a panic merchant, but I feel things are very close to kicking off. |
I don’t think you are. I think you are just being realistic. Events on their own say little. Put them together you start to see a picture.
History tells you that - WW1 and 2 in particular. | | | |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 10:18 - Sep 18 with 1210 views | Guthrum |
Tho the early part of that period covers the final years of National Service (conscription) and the end of Imperial commitments across the world. The economic crisis of the 1970s led to further reductions in the decade after that. In 1955, we were still committed to defending West Germany (whose military was only re-founded that year) against the Soviets.
Added to that, GDP has increased greatly over that time, along with the costs of running all other UK government departments. Plus new expenses such as computer technology (a niche item up to the 1980s). | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 10:35 - Sep 18 with 1138 views | Guthrum |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 10:10 - Sep 18 by Churchman |
I don’t think you are. I think you are just being realistic. Events on their own say little. Put them together you start to see a picture.
History tells you that - WW1 and 2 in particular. |
However, we are (I think) both old enough to remember the Cold War. Clashes, provocations, border violations and semi-deniable terrorist outrages were happening all the time without it going "hot". Both sides were trying to push it so far as they could, to gain every advantage, but neither wanted outright war, so it didn't happen.
That is as good a precedent as the Kaiser's 19th century mentality in 1914 or Hitler's overreaching clumsiness 25 years later. | |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 11:17 - Sep 18 with 1013 views | NthQldITFC |
Noticeable to my uninformed eye there is that the Tories dumped it from 5% to 2% between 84 and 97, Labour held it steady then slightly increased between 97 and 2010, the Tories dumped again between 10 and 19 before a small increase, and then Labour held it steady again.
Remind me - which party is the party of defence?
(Neither, I suppose, but the Tories should certainly keep their gobs shut.) |  |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 11:23 - Sep 18 with 988 views | chicoazul |
Who would possibly have guessed the military would start crying about war when their budgets are under intense scrutiny. The black hole of the MoD and their procurement is an absolute disgrace. |  |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 11:36 - Sep 18 with 942 views | Churchman |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 10:18 - Sep 18 by Guthrum |
Tho the early part of that period covers the final years of National Service (conscription) and the end of Imperial commitments across the world. The economic crisis of the 1970s led to further reductions in the decade after that. In 1955, we were still committed to defending West Germany (whose military was only re-founded that year) against the Soviets.
Added to that, GDP has increased greatly over that time, along with the costs of running all other UK government departments. Plus new expenses such as computer technology (a niche item up to the 1980s). |
The trouble with stats is that they can be misleading. They for example don’t including the recent lumping in of security services into the Defence budget. Or the commitment to Ukraine, which was formerly funded separately.
The government is playing smoke and mirrors. Earnest tooth sucking verbal commitment, but in reality, not interested. That’s where we are.
Re Chico’s point, I agree. Procurement has been pitiful. It needs improving like nothing else, as it does across government. But the fact remains that the military cannot plan anything without an identifiable budget and clear sighted political will. Neither will happen.
It’s exactly the same as the muddled thinking of the 1930s that directly led to the death of 55 million people, nearly all of whom just wanted to live their lives.
We are making the same mistakes now and have done for the best part of 15 years. | | | |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 12:25 - Sep 18 with 844 views | mellowblue |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:44 - Sep 18 by Guthrum |
I disagree with two key parts of his original premise.
Firstly, that the Russians were aiming to kill any of the foreign dignitaries. The drone hit the engine of the train, not any of the carriages or the station. That is not pure chance, these things are guided. It was a warning message, not an attempted assassination.
Secondly, that we would have had 'no choice but to retaliate with a punitive military strike on a Russian target'. That is not the case at all. This was no official delegation (NATO or otherwise), but a collection of observers and lobbyists with no diplomatic standing. Prominent individuals, but travelling in a private capacity. They voluntarily entered a war zone.
Yes, it would have been of considerable significance and provoked a reaction. But Western governments are not looking for any excuse to start an open war with Russia. Otherwise it would already have happened.
Overall, this article is nothing more than a plea for increased defence spending. Which, in the real world, has to be taken from other budgets (already cut to the bone) or through increased taxation (deeply unpopular). |
as you say, they are just gauging reactions, seeing what they can get away with. It is still fairly low grade, no fatalities etc. If we go tit for tat, temping as it is, I doubt it would escalate to full warfare. We do nothave the will and Putin is too weak currently, a 2 front war for him would be fatal. It is a matter of time before he seriously tests our resolve in one of the Baltic countries though. On a side note I really must visit those countries while they are still free and open. |  | | |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 12:46 - Sep 18 with 799 views | Guthrum |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 11:36 - Sep 18 by Churchman |
The trouble with stats is that they can be misleading. They for example don’t including the recent lumping in of security services into the Defence budget. Or the commitment to Ukraine, which was formerly funded separately.
The government is playing smoke and mirrors. Earnest tooth sucking verbal commitment, but in reality, not interested. That’s where we are.
Re Chico’s point, I agree. Procurement has been pitiful. It needs improving like nothing else, as it does across government. But the fact remains that the military cannot plan anything without an identifiable budget and clear sighted political will. Neither will happen.
It’s exactly the same as the muddled thinking of the 1930s that directly led to the death of 55 million people, nearly all of whom just wanted to live their lives.
We are making the same mistakes now and have done for the best part of 15 years. |
I don't find the parallels with the 1930s quite so persuasive.
While the West may not have been engaging in massive rearmament, neither is Russia. A superpower, engaged in a full-scale war, their military spending is still dwarfed by that of Europe, even allowing for greater purchasing power and without bringing the USA into the picture. A good proportion of their best men and equipment (excluding strategic forces) has been used up in Ukraine. They are no more advanced in the new drone warfare than the West (as evidenced by having to buy stuff from Iran). The strain is affecting the Russian economy.
It was the German-Soviet non-aggression pact (with its secret plan to partition Poland) which gave Hitler the encouragement to invade in September 1939. By that point, the signals from London and Paris were entirely clear that it would mean war. Nobody is going to be cooperating with Putin to seize bits of Europe, not even Trump's USA (the Chinese are on the wrong side of the world - and wouldn't have any interest, either).
Hitler was (a bit like Trump) very good at hoodwinking traditional statesmen by his willingness to break all the rules and take wild gambles. Putin does not behave like that. Plus nobody has trusted him for quite a long while. There has been no Munich. In 2014, sanctions were imposed and Ukraine reinforced, Crimea and the Donbas were not signed away.
On your first point, the security services are the front-line in the present contest. They are arguably more important than tanks and infantry battalions. Likewise, aid to Ukraine is more useful to the UK's defence against Russia than raw increases in the size of our armed forces. | |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 12:53 - Sep 18 with 775 views | bluester |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 11:23 - Sep 18 by chicoazul |
Who would possibly have guessed the military would start crying about war when their budgets are under intense scrutiny. The black hole of the MoD and their procurement is an absolute disgrace. |
It's much better than it was. Since around 2022 there's been a real push to change defence procurement and governance to make it easier for SMEs to participate. SMEs are often better at pivoting quickly and can deliver niche capabilities at lower cost. Many of the historic barriers to entry have been reduced by 2025/26, although some still remain. It's by no means perfect, but the market is no longer quite as heavily dominated by the primes as it once was. | | | |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 12:55 - Sep 18 with 770 views | Guthrum |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 12:53 - Sep 18 by bluester |
It's much better than it was. Since around 2022 there's been a real push to change defence procurement and governance to make it easier for SMEs to participate. SMEs are often better at pivoting quickly and can deliver niche capabilities at lower cost. Many of the historic barriers to entry have been reduced by 2025/26, although some still remain. It's by no means perfect, but the market is no longer quite as heavily dominated by the primes as it once was. |
Well that's a good thing, particularly at a time of rapidly changing technology and military requirements. | |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 13:57 - Sep 18 with 646 views | Swansea_Blue |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:34 - Sep 18 by Churchman |
Too close, GS. But I get the impression the government are so consumed with themselves and ‘the Party’ they are completely blind or in complete denial.
Just look at our hypocritical liar of a Chancellor. Resigned in high dudgeon as defence minister because Starmer and the Treasury wouldn't even back even the most inadequate of plans, when the real reason he resigned was because he wanted away from Starmer and the ‘big job’
He gets the big job and chucks in the bin the very reason why he resigned as defence minister. He is not interested and neither is the government. Maybe their ‘give peace a chance’ peacenik approach is the right one and it’s correct to put everything else before defence of the country. Let’s face it, they share the current disarmament policy with their predecessors.
But I think they are wrong. It is just about the most dangerous period of my lifetime and one I never thought I’d live to see. |
True story that. I’m surprised more wasn’t make of it. The hypocrisy of Healey is off the charts. (Or at very best, naivety about the current financial position under Labour’s red lines, but I think it’s hypocrisy). |  |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 02:59 - Sep 19 with 328 views | Kropotkin123 |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 09:52 - Sep 18 by giant_stow |
Interesting thoughts you two - thanks - we have both sides laid out clearly with them!
I guess I come down on taking the threat seriously and while you Guthrum make a good point on the nature of the attack on the train, that attack isn't the only thing that's happened recently, as listed by Kropotkin123 here: How to Respond to Putin's Escalation? by Kropotkin123 15 Sep 1:31Recent Escalations
• A train that was carrying diplomats was targeted on the Polish border.
• This month, Russian drones entered Moldova
• This month, Russia sent a Shahed drone 50km into Romanian airspace.
• In August, Drones with explosives were found in Leipzig, which Germany attributed to Russia.
• In August, Romania had to scramble military jets to destroy a Russian naval drone.
• In May, a drone hit a Romanian apartment.
This is all after intelligence said Russia were planning escalations against NATO.
Reactions
• Trump doesn't want Zelensky hitting diesel targets (the reason for the increase in prices, nothing to do with his war on Iran)
• Trump's diplomats want Ukraine to give up the Donbas, so Russia can end the war.
• Some think the train attack was a deliberate attempt to kill diplomats
• Some think it is to intimidate people from visiting and supporting
Options on how to Respond
• Same old, same old. Promise more sanctions, promise more money, close more cultural centres.
• Commit European aircrafts to defending Ukrainian airspace. Russia wants to mobilize 500,000-600,000 more solders through forced conscription. This would give them an easy excuse to do that with more unity from their population.
• Move European defences closer to the borders to protect against incursions, overlapping into Ukraine to give them more defensive capabilities. I agree with this suggestion.
What do you think?
I'm by nature a panic merchant, but I feel things are very close to kicking off. |
I was trying not to give too much of my own opinion in there, as I didn't really want to set the discourse around my opinion. I was more interested in other's opinions.
My opinion on your question is we are closer to a hot war than the general population thinks, and we should be investing more in our defence than we are, but further away than the list of recent escalations might initially suggest.
Aim 1: Justify forced mobilization
The key thing here is we have Russian "elections" from today until Sunday for the Duma. At some point soon after these "elections", multiple intelligence service say Russia will do another massive round of forced mobilization. Most put it at 500k-600k. The initial phase being roughly half of that number.
Russia presents their war against Ukraine, to it's population, as a war against NATO. The "special military operation" being a defensive operation against NATO forces. If the Russia military can instigate a semi-serious offensive military response from NATO or the EU, it will make it very easy for Russia to justify forced mobilization to it's population. It won't matter how much they have done to provoke it, that won't be told.
Aim 2: Frighten c ountries into scaling back support for Ukraine
I don't think many specifics need to be given on what the EU are doing to support Ukraine. Russian wants it to stop and is seeing if this form of intimidation will one. Russia does think it can break the alliances willpower over time, and is encouraged by the AfD winning in eastern Germany, and other groups trying to carve out a pro-Russian niche.
One thing beyond my list it likes to try and do it redirect Ukrainian drones. It can claim it is an accidental on their part and the result of Ukrainian aggression.
Aim 3: Frighten countries into scaling back NATO deployments
2 months before the war in Ukraine, Russia sent a demand to the USA and NATO stating it should withdraw all NATO forces back to the "NATO-Russia Founding Act" in 1997. So no NATO forces in the Baltics, Poland, Romania... Basically east of Germany and the Carpathians. This is one of their fundamental aims. So far this aim has failed spectacularly, with more countries joining NATO, but it remains a core aim.
Scaling back NATO deployments could be seen as a win.
Why we are fundamentally closer
Russia chooses to escalate militarily. When it doesn't get pushback militarily, it chooses to escalate further. We are only pushing back with words, sanctions, etc. Russia perceives this as inaction and an unwillingness to do what is necessary.
Where is our lines? What would trigger a military response? Would the US join if the lines were blurry? (Probably not while Trump is in charge. A Russian Billionaire who is part of Putin's inner circle paid for and hosted part of his son's wedding!).
What I think we should do
Moving our aerial defense to the edge of our borders. Set a limit, that extends into Ukraine, to wipe out missiles, drones, etc. if we don't, NATO civilians will be killed by a stray missile or drones within a NATO country, and we will have a bigger question on our hands.
It will be a military response. They will wag their tongues, do something adjacent, but they will see a line. It will a defensive action. It will also benefit Ukraine. We can choose to extend aerial defense into Ukraine further. It gives us defensive escalation chips. [Post edited 19 Sep 3:02]
|  |
| |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 06:58 - Sep 19 with 235 views | Churchman |
| "How close are we to a hot war with Russia?" on 12:46 - Sep 18 by Guthrum |
I don't find the parallels with the 1930s quite so persuasive.
While the West may not have been engaging in massive rearmament, neither is Russia. A superpower, engaged in a full-scale war, their military spending is still dwarfed by that of Europe, even allowing for greater purchasing power and without bringing the USA into the picture. A good proportion of their best men and equipment (excluding strategic forces) has been used up in Ukraine. They are no more advanced in the new drone warfare than the West (as evidenced by having to buy stuff from Iran). The strain is affecting the Russian economy.
It was the German-Soviet non-aggression pact (with its secret plan to partition Poland) which gave Hitler the encouragement to invade in September 1939. By that point, the signals from London and Paris were entirely clear that it would mean war. Nobody is going to be cooperating with Putin to seize bits of Europe, not even Trump's USA (the Chinese are on the wrong side of the world - and wouldn't have any interest, either).
Hitler was (a bit like Trump) very good at hoodwinking traditional statesmen by his willingness to break all the rules and take wild gambles. Putin does not behave like that. Plus nobody has trusted him for quite a long while. There has been no Munich. In 2014, sanctions were imposed and Ukraine reinforced, Crimea and the Donbas were not signed away.
On your first point, the security services are the front-line in the present contest. They are arguably more important than tanks and infantry battalions. Likewise, aid to Ukraine is more useful to the UK's defence against Russia than raw increases in the size of our armed forces. |
An interesting article
https://www.polytechnique-insi
The Royal Navy
https://www.globalmilitary.net
As a maritime nation it is interesting that in the past year destroyer /frigate numbers have been cut from 14 to 11. Same as Greece and less than Germany. The ones that are left are so old they are barely serviceable. Hardly surprising given their expected life was 18 years and we are a long way beyond that!
Never mind eh. Let’s call it another ‘capability gap’. A lovely gentle political term for defenceless. It came into being when the government decided it could not afford to carry on developing Nimrod 3 and scrapped the lot after millions hosed up the wall. Britain has responsibility for the western approaches, but all cover ceased and Russian ships and submarines moved in. Eventually the gap was filled buying Boeing P8s and RC135 Rivet Joint aircraft - let’s hope Donald allows spares if there’s a problem eh?
It’s a good example of muddled thinking and not fit for purpose planning and procurement over decades. Another is the dozen or so Chinooks bought years ago. The MoD spent huge sums of money buying them but to save money said the U.K. would supply the avionics. Boeing said that would work. Yes it will! No it didn’t. To my knowledge they are still rotting in a hanger to this day or gave the scrap men a bit of work.
Russia has something like 23 Divisions. We can field one (1j. But only if we borrow some transport. As for numbers, I’m not sure where they come from. Three years ago it was about 72,000. It was set to reduce by 10,000 the following year. Poor pay, conditions, budget cuts. This was what I heard from the Army’s head of Recruitment at an Army charity dinner.
So what are we left with? Hoping we can leech off Poland and those countries closest to Russia who are threatened and that Ukraine continues to exhaust them? Maybe we can continue to mug off the US? Maybe that nice Mr Putin will go away along with all the other threats out there.
The numbers suggest that Euro countries can keep Russia away at the moment. But there is no real collective defence. It’s piecemeal now US have opted out. And make no mistake, would you want to rely on Trump’s mob?
In critical areas like sea and new warfare, drones etc, Europe is well behind. The tiered defence, production and deployment of them is something Ukraine can do and Russia is learning, but there rest of Europe has no significant capability. But it does have the capability and brains to remedy this if there’s political will. But that’s for others
Let’s face it, there’s no political will in this country. Our marvellous new chancellor has just proved that.
As for the German Soviet pact, Hitler well and truly mugged off Stalin who was frighted knowing his forces were weak following the purges. For the Nazis itmeant shutting the back door until Adolf was ready to have a go. He would have invaded Poland regardless because he was a gambler. He’d also met Chamberlain, Daladier and rightly viewed them as weak little men. Mussolini didn’t count as he was in his pocket. Hitler thought at worst there would be was with France and Britain and at best they’d cave in. The Soviet pact was a bonus.
Where there are parallels is the game of strength and weakness. Perceptions. Hitler’s nearly worked. On paper The allies were stronger than Germany in 1939 collectively. But they weren’t joined up any more than the Europeans are now. Procurement and rearmament in the 30s had been at best random and at worked a reluctant shambles. Just like now.
In Putin they have a dictator who is clear sighted in what he wants - just as Hitler was. He holds the old Russian view that if one Russian stands on a piece of land, it’s Russia’s by right. That’s why the pre iron curtain boundaries, but including Sweden and Finland have to return to the motherland.
Political strength, will and clear sightedness? Plenty by those threatened like Poland. None whatsoever by the likes of Spain and let’s face it, none here beyond what the politicians think the electorate might want to hear. Make sure Remembrance Sunday is attended (having learned that Corbyn’s derisory treatment of it didn’t go down well) with a serious, contemplative look, its job done.
Still, we can rely on Trump is Russia chooses to try its luck, can’t we. We have to as defence is bottom of the priority list. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
